Anons, what follows is a dissection of a segment of Ari Melbar's interview show on NBC.
Q linked to it even though it is some months old.
Anons brought up how Bauer misspoke in his description of the "new thing" that was top of the news for Melbar that day.
See >>3425848 >>3425983
This dissection will be broken into a series of posts.
View the vid, as per Q's posted Declaration.
blob:https://www.msnbc.com/c67845ad-84e0-4df9-8823-9fc6c68392bd
Part 1 of 6.
On Screen, POTUS Tweet (7:29AM - 21 Mar 2018):
"Special Council is told to find crimes, whether a crime exists or not. I was opposed to the selection of Mueller to be Special Council. I am still opposed to it. I think President Trump was right when he said there never should have been a Special Council appointed because …"
[The show did not put the rest of the remarks on screen.)
Host, Ari Melber, continued with his introduction, flippantly referred to conspiracy theories about the DOJ and FBI, and eventually asked a question of Bob Bauer who chose to discuss something other than the question as asked. In that maneuvere some confusion may have been conjured.
Bauer: I want to return to something that you raised just a second ago. And that is, there's already some question about how it was that he (Sessions) was involved in the firing of Andrew McCabe in the first place.
He (Sessions) normalized the procedure by which the President of the United States tries to force the Department of Jusice to do his bidding. Maybe not so much directly anymore, but by tweet. And that is something that the Attorney General should not be doing.
But second, he (Sessions) made a committment to Congress not to take any action that could potentially effect the tenure of Mr. Mueller. And instead what he did is he fired Mr. Mueller and immediately laid the foundation, helped to lay the foundation, for the President to argue that the firing of Mueller reflects the corruption in the FBI and the reason that he, the President, believes that the Mueller investigation should be brought to a conclusion. So he (Sessions) had a direct hand in creating a line of argument that President is using to threaten Mr. Mueller. I don't believe he (Sessions) should have done that.
Ari Melber: Hm. Well put. Renato?
Melber was clearly confused but did not know enough, or did not care enough, to ask for clarification from Bauer. Perhaps Melber was too embarrassed that he had not followed what Bauer had said with such gravitas.
Another point: Melber acknowledged there was nothing nefarious about Sessions having fired McCabe ("yet"); in response Mariotti talked "recusals that should be respected" and that the Attorney General – and the President – should not interfere in investigations of themselves.
Part 2 of 6.
Mariotti: If they are able to do that (interfere) they are above the law. Here my understanding of the reporting is that Sessions was not aware that criminal investigation (into whether or not Sessions had perjured himself).
Mariotti continued: Already there are significant questions that Sessions had violated his recusal in order to fire McCabe.
Melber: Do you think he did?
Mariotti: It certainly appears that way. There should be questions about it.
Melber: He (Sessions) said he would recuse from matters involving the Clinton Foundation and he fired McCabe about the Clinton Foundation.
Mariotti: That's right. He certainly appears to have. And more importantly, it appears that, beyond that, the President, Donald Trump, pushed him to fire McCabe for reasons related to the Russian investigation.
Melber: Which itself is a separate improper issue separate from the recusal.
Part 3 of 6.
Okay, get that?
The assumption is that a President can not direct the Attorney General, much less direct the Attorney General to fire someone working at the top of the FBI.
The underlying notion is that Sessions is a "potentially" criminal liar. See point 3.
The new "thing" discussed is that, reportedly, Sessions interfered with an investigaton of himself – even though he had no knowledge of such a criminal investigation and even though his legal representative flat-out stated that Sessions was not under investigation. Indeed, the "reports" depended on sources that said such an investigation was considered, not that it was underway.
Also note that Bauer moved the goal posts: he quibbled that the statement denied that there was an investigation "currently". There is no evidence there was any such investigation underway in the first place but Bauer pressed to keep that false assumption in play. That move ought to have caused the host to ask for clarity, again. But he was part of the same game.
That new "thing" in point three unravels itself as one listens to the interview. All three men were clearly biased against the Trump Admin but could not keep the new "thing" story from falling apart in their own words.
They assumed that Sessions could involve himself in the Russian investigation as that was not part of his recusal, according to their own comments in this video. So they shifted to the notion that the President could not involve himself in the Russian investigation.
Note that President Trump clearly understood that such an investigation was underway, but he was not under investigation, as Comey had clarified to the President a few times before, later, he too was fired. Listen to the interview in light of what we now know from the public record.
As for unraveling, see point 3. Kek.
To reiterate: Melber assumed, and his guests did not intervene to correct him, that the Sessions recusal was separate from the Russian investigation. They did this so as to shift to the assumption, or the underlying assertion, that a President can not involve himself in such an investigation. The premise is that the President was under investigation.
But he has not been under investigation, anyway.
So a) Sessions' recusal is separate from the Russian investigation and b) the President is not under investigation so the objection that he'd involve himself is cut out from under these three anti-Trump poseurs. This is based on their own "understanding".
What did McCabe do that caused Sessions to fire him over the Clinton Foundation? They did not seem too keen to get into that, of course. But they did assume that was the key and that is what made Sessions involving himself wrong, yes?
They would have placed themselves above the law? In executing the law, even? Odd, that.
Underestimating the public much?
Regarding Q's link to and old segment of Melbar's interview show:
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/fired-fbi-official-authorized-perjury-investigation-against-sessions-1191727171576?v=raila&
Part 4 of 6.
Now, returning to Bauer's remarks.
The Tweet to which Bauer objected had the President quoting someone else. The quote expressed disagreement with appointing Mueller.
Also, the quote expressed opposition to the establishment of a Special Council in the first place. The President is assumed to have been in agreement on both of these points, as expressed by Dershowitz.
That provides Bauer with an excuse to talk about something else.
Besides the mistaken assumption that the President lacks the constitutional authority and power to direct the Department of Justice, particularly in terms of appointments to the top ranks of the DOJ and FBI, Bauer expressed his view that Sessions was taking direction from the President's tweets.
Interesting that Bauer served Hussein when Hussein openly directed the DOJ on the investigation into HRC's use of private server and mishandling of State Department communications (emails). Remember? Of course Anons remember: Hussein publicly said that HRC did not intend this or that; soon after the FBI announced that no charges would be laid because HRC did nto intend this or that.
Projection? Bauer knew what it meant for Hussein to have done that; it is this basis that Bauer depended on to criticize President Trump's tweet, yes?
Yet the Secial Council has continued without removal of Mueller and without interference. Indeed, it appears that the Mueller investigation has interfered with much else – such as investigations underway in Congress.
Part 5 of 6.
Now, return to the Bauer remarks in which he referred to Mueller rather than McCabe. The count of mentions of Mueller's name are noted in square brackets.
Quote:
But second, he (Sessions) made a commitment to Congress not to take any action that could potentially effect the tenure of Mr. Mueller [1]. And instead what he did is he fired Mr. Mueller [2] and immediately laid the foundation, helped to lay the foundation, for the President to argue that the firing of Mueller [3] reflects the corruption in the FBI and the reason that he, the President, believes that the Mueller [4] investigation should be brought to a conclusion. So he (Sessions) had a direct hand in creating a line of argument that President is using to threaten Mr. Mueller [5]. I don't believe he (Sessions) should have done that.
unQuote
Bauer said "Mueller" five times. It is possible that Bauer misspoke on the second mention and meant to say Mr. McCabe was fired by Sessions. Likewise on the third mention.
Corrected the quote would read as follows:
Start:
He (Sessions) normalized the procedure by with the President of the United States tries to force the Department of Jusice to do his bidding. Maybe not so much directly anymore, but by tweet. And that is something that the Attorney General should not be doing.
But second, he (Sessions) made a commitment to Congress not to take any action that could potentially effect the tenure of Mr. Mueller. And instead what he did is he fired Mr. [McCabe] and immediately laid the foundation, helped to lay the foundation, for the President to argue that the firing of [McCabe] reflects the corruption in the FBI and the reason that he, the President, believes that the Mueller investigation should be brought to a conclusion. So he (Sessions) had a direct hand in creating a ine of argument that President is using to threaten Mr. Mueller. I don't believe he (Sessions) should have done that.
End
If this is the intended statement of Bauer then what to make of it?
Part 6 of 6.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/fired-fbi-official-authorized-perjury-investigation-against-sessions-1191727171576?v=raila&
If that was the intended statement of Bauer then what to make of it?
A) The assumption is that McCabe did not deserve to be fired. Or replaced by a new Admin.
B) This was assumed in addition to the notion that the Attorney General had recused himself so broadly as to commit to not exercise his authority in hiring and firing (or otherwise directing) the personnel of the DOB and FBI if such an action could be said to "potentially effect" the tenure Mueller. Not that it did have an effect, just that it "could potentially".
C) Note that Bauer did not show that firing McCabe effected the tenure of Mr. Mueller. So he lowered his standard to his own interpretation of "could potentially effect". Of course, it has been some time now since the firing and Mueller remains in place.
Also note that the investigation could continue without Mueller running it, of course. But Bauer tried to make it specific to Mueller without explaining or clarifying why that particular individual was so important to Bauer's thinking.
So … Poof goes his argument. But he said it on the record and can be held to it, yes? Slippery devil.
D) Bauer then described his theory (conspiracy theory anyone? kek) that if Sessions, or indeed if the President, acted to root out corruption in the FBI, it would not be acceptable because 1) Sessions had committed not to take action that "could potentially effect" the tenure of Mr. Mueller.
Nice Catch-22 implanted in his thinking, yes?
Wonder how Hussein's actions in office would fare under such a theory of how the Executive Branch is supposed to function? Kek.
Hold Bauer to what he said?
E) Rooting out corruption, or just replacing holdouts from the Hussein Admin, was portrayed by Bauer as beyond the pale for the Trump Admin.
That condemns Bauer, and his thinking, does it not?
F) Where exactly is the threat to Mueller that Bauer asserted President Trump had made?
The line of argument was not created by the firing of McCabe. It pre-existed the presidency of Donald Trump. That line of argument is robust because of what has been learned about the FBI and the DOJ.
Q has just laid out for us what we already have had for quite some time. It is a helpful reminder of the role that the MSM has played in misrepresenting the reality of the Hussein Admin versus the reality of the Trump Admin (and, indeed, of the constitutional order).